Question about large cheque

Ballard

GingerBob wrote: »

Quite.


The banks are stuffed with bumbling buffoons who can't interpret legislation correctly and are infested with paranoia when it comes to so-called 'money laundering'.
I'd like to know the percentage of bank transactions that turn out to be of a criminal nature. I'd hazard a guess at something around 10 to the minus 10 percent. Or put another way; hardly any. Yet we all have to put up with this garbage. Of course you can blame the politicians, and the faceless officials of the State to a fair degree, but the banks are culpable as well.

So-called money laundering? Are you suggesting that money laundering doesn't exist?

The legislation is quite clear. Banks must continually check that accounts are used in keeping with their knowledge of the customer. If transactions appear which are out of character then they must investigate or risk heavy fines (as given above).

Ed-1

Ballard wrote: »

So-called money laundering? Are you suggesting that money laundering doesn't exist?

The legislation is quite clear. Banks must continually check that accounts are used in keeping with their knowledge of the customer. If transactions appear which are out of character then they must [STRIKE]investigate[/STRIKE] or risk heavy fines (as given above).

Internal policy: withdraw all facilities (as we can't be bothered to investigate)

GingerBob_3

Ballard wrote: »

So-called money laundering? Are you suggesting that money laundering doesn't exist?

The legislation is quite clear. Banks must continually check that accounts are used in keeping with their knowledge of the customer. If transactions appear which are out of character then they must investigate or risk heavy fines (as given above).

No. Just hinting at the broad - and getting broader - definition that it now has. For example, it's now a catch-all term for just about every type of financial crime.


I think "suspicious" is the word used. Regardless, it's equally open to interpretation as "out of character".


Here's something to ponder over: Who is the greater threat to society? Your average money launderer or Theresa May and others of her ilk? The latter, surely?

badger09

agrinnall wrote: »

I've paid a £50,000 cheque into my account without the slightest quibble and it cleared as normal. It was about 5 years ago and things might be a bit tighter now, but surely the cheque will be issued by the savings organisation and I can't see any reason why it should be queried in any way.

This ^^^^^

grumbler

Ballard wrote: »

Posters on here repeatedly complain that banks are busybodies with nothing better to do than sick their noses into things that don't concern them. They seem to think that banks enjoy spending millions on staffing departments for no reason. The fact, however, is that it's an expensive pain in the neck for them and they'd much rather the ability to turn a blind eye and make a quick buck.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_your_customer

Quote
Monitoring of a customer's transactions against expected behaviour and recorded profile as well as that of the customer's peers.
Unquote

KYC isn't merely checking someone's address as appears to be the widely held belief.

I have no problems with KYC and AML.

What I have problems with is how arrogantly and disrespectfully banks do this.

agrinnall wrote: »

.... surely the cheque will be issued by the savings organisation and I can't see any reason why it should be queried in any way.

badger09 wrote: »

This ^^^^^

Do you see any reasons for querying a big cheque from HMRC?

>> Santander have froze my account

Unless you are psychiatrist, it makes no sense to look for reasoning behind paranoiac's behaviour. Black Cat in a Dark Room.

Goldiegirl

I suppose the question is - what do people prefer.


The current situation


or


No AML legislation at all, and the criminals have carte blanche to use the banks to launder dirty money to finance more crime and terrorism.


If the latter situation existed the very same people ranting about AML legislation would be raving about the banks doing nothing to stop crime.

grumbler

I don't care about AML as long as it doesn't break the fundamental principle "innocent until proven guilty".
Postpone suspicious transactions. Take more time to clear suspicious cheques and cash deposits. Set clear limits for allowed delays, stop freezing whole accounts for indefinite time only because you suspect something and treating all customers like criminals.

Re financing terrorism, it's red herring invented by our governments, USA's mainly, to justify the way AML is being implemented in practice.
What exactly *big* amounts of money really needed "laundering" to finance 9/11? 7/7? Paris? Brussels? This DIY terrorism is very cheap actually if your really think about it instead of relying on our governments' propaganda.

Ballard

grumbler wrote: »

I have no problems with KYC and AML.

What I have problems with is how arrogantly and disrespectfully banks do this.

Do you see any reasons for querying a big cheque from HMRC?

>> Santander have froze my account

Unless you are psychiatrist, it makes no sense to look for reasoning behind paranoiac's behaviour. Black Cut in a Dark Room.

In the case of the op I see no reason why it would be blocked. The bank may query it but it would be easy to prove that it's kosher. Your post lead me to believe that you feel that banks shouldn't question any transactions rather than this one in particular. We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that as yet nothing has happened in relation to the op. Perhaps arguing that the bank is wrong in this case is somewhat premature.

Ballard

GingerBob wrote: »

Who's talking about fraud? This is about MLP.


And regarding fraud, in most cases the banks are liable.

Money laundering is turning ill gotten gains into legitimate funds. Fraud is money gained illegally and needs laundering to get it back into the system. Do keep up.

grumbler

Ballard wrote: »

In the case of the op I see no reason why it would be blocked.

Yes, unexpected and unpredictable freezing is exactly what many people keep complaining about.

The bank may query it but it would be easy to prove that it's kosher.

To prove what exactly and how 'easily'? Did you read the thread about Santander?

Your post lead me to believe that you feel that banks shouldn't question any transactions rather than this one in particular.

No, I never meant this. On the contrary, my point is that individual transactions have to be questioned (with strict time limits after the proofs were provided) instead of a typical blanket account freezing.

We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that as yet nothing has happened in relation to the op. Perhaps arguing that the bank is wrong in this case is somewhat premature.

Well, it's too late to argue after this happens. That was the main point of the OP - how to prevent this happening. And, unfortunately, the status quo is that there is no regular way of preventing this - even if everything is 100% legitimate and, like the OP, a customer is anticipating and willing to cooperate.